|
Post by zendancer on Dec 6, 2017 8:16:48 GMT -5
How Narada Muni, the great sage was awakened. “After that, under the shadow of a banyan tree in a forest without any human habitation, I began to meditate upon the supersoul situated within myself, using my intelligence as I learned by hearing from liberated souls. With my mind transformed into transcendental love I began to meditate upon the lotus feet of the Personality of Godhead. Tears rolled down from my eyes, and immediately the Personality of Godhead, Lord Sri Krsna, appeared on the lotus of my heart.” Narada describes the form of the absolute truth as he saw Him: “The transcendental form of the Lord, as it is, is perfectly apt to the desire of the mind.” Narada did not experience the Lord as formless, but His form is not like anything in this material world. It is described that all the differently cut and shaped forms that we are seeing all through our life do not banish all our mental disparity and dissatisfaction. But the special feature of the transcendental form of the Lord is that once it is seen, one is satisfied forever, and no material form holds any more attraction for the seer. So the Lord’s form is like nothing we see now in matter . Narada saw the form of God, he was completely satisfied in his being, and then the same form was no longer present to his vision. “Not seeing that form again, I suddenly got up, being perturbed in mind, as it happens when one loses that which is desirable.” Desiring more than anything to see again the form of the Lord, Narada tried to concentrate his mind on his heart, but he could not see Him anymore, and so became grief-stricken. Not at Narada’s command, but by that same causeless mercy, the transcendental Supreme Personality of Godhead, seeing Narada’s attempt in a lonely place, spoke unto him, just to mitigate his grief. “O Narada, I regret very much that during this lifetime, you will no longer be able to see Me. Those who are incomplete in service or still immature in being freed from all material dirt can hardly see Me. O virtuous one, you have only once seen My Person. This is just to increase your hankering for Me, because the more you desire Me, the more you will be freed from material desire. By service of the absolute truth even for a short time, a devotee’s intelligence becomes fixed firmly on Me." There is no difficulty on His part in coming to us when He wills. It may be very difficult for an ordinary subject to get an audience with the king; but if the king desires to see any citizen, what is the difficulty in his coming? talkin to and seein "god"....how do we know that some this stuff is not mental illness?...illusion,delusion. Yes, first-hand experience is highly preferable. It seems significant that Buddhists tend to have visions of Buddhist images, Christians tend to have visions of Christian images, etc. The truth is beyond all images or ideas.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Dec 6, 2017 9:22:23 GMT -5
when you say unexpected grace,what exactly do you mean?..how long does direct contact with inner silence last? Unexpected grace? In this case, it's like suddenly remembering with vivid clarity something you didn't know you had forgotten. Direct contact? It can be poorly compared to entering the cold atlantic waters off a new england beach in summer - at first the experience is a shock to the system, but after a while one becomes more and more acclimated to it, and soon swims, plays and frolics within it with natural ease.
|
|
|
Post by krsnaraja on Dec 6, 2017 10:36:50 GMT -5
How Narada Muni, the great sage was awakened. “After that, under the shadow of a banyan tree in a forest without any human habitation, I began to meditate upon the supersoul situated within myself, using my intelligence as I learned by hearing from liberated souls. With my mind transformed into transcendental love I began to meditate upon the lotus feet of the Personality of Godhead. Tears rolled down from my eyes, and immediately the Personality of Godhead, Lord Sri Krsna, appeared on the lotus of my heart.” Narada describes the form of the absolute truth as he saw Him: “The transcendental form of the Lord, as it is, is perfectly apt to the desire of the mind.” Narada did not experience the Lord as formless, but His form is not like anything in this material world. It is described that all the differently cut and shaped forms that we are seeing all through our life do not banish all our mental disparity and dissatisfaction. But the special feature of the transcendental form of the Lord is that once it is seen, one is satisfied forever, and no material form holds any more attraction for the seer. So the Lord’s form is like nothing we see now in matter . Narada saw the form of God, he was completely satisfied in his being, and then the same form was no longer present to his vision. “Not seeing that form again, I suddenly got up, being perturbed in mind, as it happens when one loses that which is desirable.” Desiring more than anything to see again the form of the Lord, Narada tried to concentrate his mind on his heart, but he could not see Him anymore, and so became grief-stricken. Not at Narada’s command, but by that same causeless mercy, the transcendental Supreme Personality of Godhead, seeing Narada’s attempt in a lonely place, spoke unto him, just to mitigate his grief. “O Narada, I regret very much that during this lifetime, you will no longer be able to see Me. Those who are incomplete in service or still immature in being freed from all material dirt can hardly see Me. O virtuous one, you have only once seen My Person. This is just to increase your hankering for Me, because the more you desire Me, the more you will be freed from material desire. By service of the absolute truth even for a short time, a devotee’s intelligence becomes fixed firmly on Me." There is no difficulty on His part in coming to us when He wills. It may be very difficult for an ordinary subject to get an audience with the king; but if the king desires to see any citizen, what is the difficulty in his coming? talkin to and seein "god"....how do we know that some this stuff is not mental illness?...illusion,delusion. Narada Muni who saw God in the heart? Narada (Sanskrit: नारद, Nārada) is a Vedic sage, famous in Hindu traditions as a traveling musician and storyteller, who carries news and enlightening wisdom. He appears in a number of Hindu texts, notably the Mahabharata and the Ramayana, as well as in the mythologies of the Puranas. In Indian texts, Narada travels to distant worlds and realms (Sanskrit: lokas). He is depicted carrying a khartal and Veena with the name Mahathi and is generally regarded as one of the great masters of the ancient musical instrument. This instrument is known by the name "mahathi" which he uses to accompany his singing of hymns, prayers and mantras. In the Vaishnavism tradition of Hinduism, he is presented as a sage with devotion to Lord Vishnu. Narada is described as both wise and mischievous, in humorous tales. Vaishnav enthusiasts depict him as a pure, elevated soul who glorifies Vishnu through his devotional songs, singing the names Hari and Narayana, and therein demonstrating bhakti yoga. The Narada Bhakti Sutra is attributed to him. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narada
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Dec 6, 2017 11:26:56 GMT -5
once we realize not through intellect but through realization itself ..can you be more specific or explain please? We've discussed this issue a lot in the past. A realization does not occur through the intellect; it's a sudden direct seeing by THAT WHICH SEES. The common example is imagining that what we see is a snake, but as we get closer, we suddenly realize that it's not a snake; it's a rope, and we relax. Self-realization is similar to this. Up to a certain point in time we imagine that we are an entity inside a body looking at an outside world. If grace allows, THAT WHICH WE ARE suddenly realizes that selfhood was nothing more than a powerful illusion, and IT/we become free from that illusion. It then becomes obvious that there was never a person who did anything. There was only the infinite ineffability of "what is," and "what is" is a living unified Whole. Call it "God" or "the Absolute," or whatever we wish, THAT is all there is, and when THAT is realized, the idea of separation is understood to be a product of imagination, only. Seeing through the illusion of selfhood results in an amazing sense of freedom. There's a lot that the intellect seems to understand with respect to this version of Awakening. There's a logic to it, and there is even a building scientific consensus related to it, as well as tons of philosophical argument. Also it's all over the arts. But it is specifically these discussions about awakening/realization that call into question the depth of understanding that the intellect may claim. In the end, it seems like unless you can make the argument yourself, in your own words, authentically, that awakening is not understood by intellect but only is known, living, grokked -- realized -- then it is still not really understood (in the sense michaelsees was referring to). But the caution at that point is that it seems like one could just take a 'leap of faith' in the sense of a concretization of belief to make oneself believe that oneself is making an authentic observation when it is actually just a statement based on a foundation of belief (bolstered by logic, evidence, art...). IOW, being dishonest.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 6, 2017 11:50:23 GMT -5
We've discussed this issue a lot in the past. A realization does not occur through the intellect; it's a sudden direct seeing by THAT WHICH SEES. The common example is imagining that what we see is a snake, but as we get closer, we suddenly realize that it's not a snake; it's a rope, and we relax. Self-realization is similar to this. Up to a certain point in time we imagine that we are an entity inside a body looking at an outside world. If grace allows, THAT WHICH WE ARE suddenly realizes that selfhood was nothing more than a powerful illusion, and IT/we become free from that illusion. It then becomes obvious that there was never a person who did anything. There was only the infinite ineffability of "what is," and "what is" is a living unified Whole. Call it "God" or "the Absolute," or whatever we wish, THAT is all there is, and when THAT is realized, the idea of separation is understood to be a product of imagination, only. Seeing through the illusion of selfhood results in an amazing sense of freedom. There's a lot that the intellect seems to understand with respect to this version of Awakening. There's a logic to it, and there is even a building scientific consensus related to it, as well as tons of philosophical argument. Also it's all over the arts. But it is specifically these discussions about awakening/realization that call into question the depth of understanding that the intellect may claim. In the end, it seems like unless you can make the argument yourself, in your own words, authentically, that awakening is not understood by intellect but only is known, living, grokked -- realized -- then it is still not really understood (in the sense michaelsees was referring to). But the caution at that point is that it seems like one could just take a 'leap of faith' in the sense of a concretization of belief to make oneself believe that oneself is making an authentic observation when it is actually just a statement based on a foundation of belief (bolstered by logic, evidence, art...). IOW, being dishonest. Correct. As noted before, there can be a full intellectual understanding of the issue prior to the direct realization, and the realization is what makes all the difference. I had done all kinds of thought experiments during the 1990's, and it was totally clear to me, intellectually, that separation is an illusion, but when the realization occurred, I was astonished by what then became obvious. I had to immediately edit my Christ-consciousness manuscript that was about to be published because I then knew that several statements in that book were incorrect. Realizing what you are is no small matter! It's like being freed from prison, and one's understanding of everything related to self-referentiality changes dramatically.
|
|
|
Post by etolle on Dec 6, 2017 15:24:36 GMT -5
full intellectual understandng of the issue prior to the direct realization. that is exactly how it happened with me but...sometimes I still get in my head or whatever you call it. an intellectual understanding of what is takin place but I still get emotionally involved in it for a few seconds...a work in progress for sure...iow, sometimes I experience life directly and sometimes not. thanks for sharing yer experience zendancer. most helpful
|
|
|
Post by eputkonen on Dec 15, 2017 9:07:58 GMT -5
What is Awakening/Enlightenment? I attempted to answer this is in a 5 minute video...https://youtu.be/AM9YTcGR-DM
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 15, 2017 9:45:15 GMT -5
Welcome back Eric. Although I don't particularly like the term "enlightenment" due to all its past baggage, your video probably points to what happens with Self-realization as well as anything can. Pretty simple. Either the "me" is seen through as the illusion it is, or it's not.
|
|
|
Post by eputkonen on Dec 15, 2017 11:21:56 GMT -5
Welcome back Eric. Although I don't particularly like the term "enlightenment" due to all its past baggage, your video probably points to what happens with Self-realization as well as anything can. Pretty simple. Either the "me" is seen through as the illusion it is, or it's not. Thanks! I like using the term "enlightenment" because of its baggage. Understanding does not occur by avoiding anything. They are equivalent terms and much of the baggage is the same with "awakening" or "being awake" as well. No need to create euphemisms to spare the ego. Most of the baggage I have seen around the term is people think "enlightenment" means you are now special or superior. Neither is true. The same baggage can be applied to "Awake". What other baggage have you seen?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 15, 2017 12:24:55 GMT -5
Welcome back Eric. Although I don't particularly like the term "enlightenment" due to all its past baggage, your video probably points to what happens with Self-realization as well as anything can. Pretty simple. Either the "me" is seen through as the illusion it is, or it's not. Thanks! I like using the term "enlightenment" because of its baggage. Understanding does not occur by avoiding anything. They are equivalent terms and much of the baggage is the same with "awakening" or "being awake" as well. No need to create euphemisms to spare the ego. Most of the baggage I have seen around the term is people think "enlightenment" means you are now special or superior. Neither is true. The same baggage can be applied to "Awake". What other baggage have you seen? The primary baggage is all of the ideas surrounding what an "enlightened person" (how's that for an oxymoron?--haha) should act like. "Liberation" or "Self-realization" seems to cut to the chase more directly than "enlightenment" for what you describe in your video, but everyone's mileage will vary in how they regard these kinds of words. Some people see through the illusion of selfhood, but still remain attached to various other ideas. Some people see through the illusion of selfhood and feel special for having done so. For some people Self-realization results in total freedom, and for some people sticking points remain. The "stink of enlightenment" (described in Zen literature) often follows seeing through the illusion of selfhood, so obviously for some people there are other insights that must occur before things fully settle down to what some of us call "the natural state." There are also cases where the sense of selfhood returns after having been seen through, so the issue doesn't seem nearly as cut and dry as might be imagined. From my POV, SR is adequate for defining the specific realization that personal selfhood is an illusion, but the word "enlightenment" seems to be more encompassing and points to something much harder to define and even deeper. I've met many people who've seen through the illusion of selfhood, but only a few to whom the term "enlightened" might be considered applicable or appropriate. JMO
|
|
|
Post by eputkonen on Dec 15, 2017 13:53:54 GMT -5
Feeling special or selfhood returning means it didn't happen. Often in these cases (from my discussions with people who feel special or find selfhood returns), I find there was usually a spiritual experience or intellectual grasping of ideas...but neither of these are what I am talking about. If the "me" was truly seen through...there is no going back and no specialness.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 15, 2017 14:41:50 GMT -5
Feeling special or selfhood returning means it didn't happen. Often in these cases (from my discussions with people who feel special or find selfhood returns), I find there was usually a spiritual experience or intellectual grasping of ideas...but neither of these are what I am talking about. If the "me" was truly seen through...there is no going back and no specialness. We'll have to agree to disagree about this. I suspect that the underlying issue has to do with one's sense of selfhood prior to SR, something we've discussed here on the forum in the past. Some people have a very "hard-core" sense of self identity; they feel as if they are little people inside the body interacting with an outside world, and they are strongly identified with their interests or activities. Other people do not have such a solid sense of selfhood. In fact, some people claim never to have had a distinct sense of selfhood at all. In the case of people with a "hard-core" sense of "me," I'd probably agree with you. There is total astonishment when they look "inside" and the "me" has completely vanished. They instantly realize that there was never a separate "me" in any sense. Sometimes this realization is accompanied by secondary realization that what one really is (in the absence of a "me") is all that is, and that no distinction can apply to THAT. There may also be a total collapse of past self-referential thought patterns, but not always. One teacher in the Adyashanti tradition claims that his initial awakening was a CC experience with Tolle. Later, he had big realizations with Adya, but even after seeing through the illusion of selfhood, he claims that it took a oneness experience and some time before his past self-referential thinking habits dropped away.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 15, 2017 23:14:33 GMT -5
Welcome back Eric. Although I don't particularly like the term "enlightenment" due to all its past baggage, your video probably points to what happens with Self-realization as well as anything can. Pretty simple. Either the "me" is seen through as the illusion it is, or it's not. Thanks! I like using the term "enlightenment" because of its baggage. Understanding does not occur by avoiding anything. They are equivalent terms and much of the baggage is the same with "awakening" or "being awake" as well. No need to create euphemisms to spare the ego. Most of the baggage I have seen around the term is people think "enlightenment" means you are now special or superior. Neither is true. The same baggage can be applied to "Awake". What other baggage have you seen? Hey Eric, watched the video and found nothing that I'd disagree with. Although, if you're interested, I could share some of the typical objections and challenges to the ideas you expressed that have driven the past dialog here on the forum. As far as this goes, I discern a useful distinction between enlightenment and awakening. Would you be interested in what that is? I agree that any sense of superiority is a dead giveaway. The way I like to express this point in detail is that what is realized in self-realization is something -- really, the only "thing" -- that is common to everyone. What is pointed to by the notion of this commonality is unconditional. In contrast, people who speak on the topic and make videos like yours are engaged in the business of relative expression. In terms of that, a distinction between the condition of a sense of identification with what comes and goes, or the absence thereof, is quite relevant.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 15, 2017 23:32:44 GMT -5
when you say unexpected grace,what exactly do you mean?..how long does direct contact with inner silence last? Unexpected grace? In this case, it's like suddenly remembering with vivid clarity something you didn't know you had forgotten. Direct contact? It can be poorly compared to entering the cold atlantic waters off a new england beach in summer - at first the experience is a shock to the system, but after a while one becomes more and more acclimated to it, and soon swims, plays and frolics within it with natural ease. "♪ let the music be your master ♫ .. ♫ will you heed the master's call? ♪"
|
|
|
Post by eputkonen on Dec 15, 2017 23:47:02 GMT -5
Although, if you're interested, I could share some of the typical objections and challenges to the ideas you expressed that have driven the past dialog here on the forum. Yes, could you share that via private message? Sure. What is your distinction? Speaking and using words at all is relative expression.
|
|